A different remedy but the same lottery
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (0630) 29 July 2006, 95-96(2)Publication details: 2006Subject(s):- LUNN POLY LTD AND ANOTHER V LIVERPOOL AND LANCASHIRE PROPERTIES LTD AND ANOTHER
- JAGGARD V SAWYER AND ANOTHER
- CRESKA LTD V HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM LBC
- TOP SHOP PRECINCTS LTD V KWIK SAVE STORES LTD
- YOUNG AND CO'S BREWERY PLC V GORDON
- DAS AND OTHERS V LINDEN MEWS
- MIDTOWN LTD V CITY OF LONDON REAL PROPERTY CO LTD
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- Landlord and tenant
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L134383 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 134383-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
The second of two articles on injunctions. Explains what happens if the court decides that an injunction is not a suitable remedy. Discusses in depth "Lunn Poly Ltd v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Ltd" ([2006] EWCA Civ 430, L133984) and explains how the surprising judgment came about. Clarifies how damages are assessed on a negotiating basis and lists cases in which damages in lieu have been granted. (See also L134313).